Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Survey

Introduction

In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at

23 BLM recreation sites in 11 states during fiscal year 2010 (FY10). The survey was developed to measure

each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,

including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and

waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the

survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data

regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation

use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.

The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Big Morongo Canyon Preserve are summarized in

this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below

(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The

satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This

is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for

this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due

to rounding).

The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor

opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be

found on page 9.

FY10 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied

overall with appropriate facilities,

services, and recreational opportunities:

98%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Information

Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Managing Visitor and Recreation Use

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Resource Management

Report # BIMO710

Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY10, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.

Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.

All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.

The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.

Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.

For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.

For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator

at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Research Methods

Understanding the Results

Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.

Each graph includes the following information:

• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.

• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

51 2 3 4

Very

PoorVery

Good

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

22%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

23%

77%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

40%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

24%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

2%

8%

9%

45%

35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

1%

21%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

24%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

33%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

32%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

37%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

45%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

6%

38%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

46%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

9%

16%

33%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

32%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

5%

36%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

2%

35%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

1%

37%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

21%

77%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 99% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 75% Average evaluation score: 4.1

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

2

4

6

5

3

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Developed Facilities

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

31%

63%

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing usefulmaps and brochures

FY10: 126 respondents

Rating

Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities

FY10: 131 respondents

Rating

Maintaining aclean site

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities

FY10: 106 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: visitor andrecreation management

FY10: 124 respondents

Rating

Managing thenumber of people

FY10: 110 respondents

Rating

Managing the appropriateuse of vehicles

FY10: 105 respondents

Rating

Keeping noise atappropriate levels

FY10: 120 respondents

Rating

Providing sufficient law enforcementpresence to prevent crime

FY10: 55 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: BLM protectionof natural and cultural resources

FY10: 134 respondents

Rating

Ensuring that visitor activities do notinfringe on resource protection

FY10: 121 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thenatural resources

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thecultural resources

FY10: 97 respondents

Rating

Overall quality ofrecreation experience

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Providing useful informationon the Internet

FY10: 54 respondents

Rating

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Survey

Introduction

In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at

23 BLM recreation sites in 11 states during fiscal year 2010 (FY10). The survey was developed to measure

each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,

including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and

waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the

survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data

regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation

use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.

The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Big Morongo Canyon Preserve are summarized in

this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below

(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The

satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This

is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for

this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due

to rounding).

The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor

opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be

found on page 9.

FY10 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied

overall with appropriate facilities,

services, and recreational opportunities:

98%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Information

Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Managing Visitor and Recreation Use

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Resource Management

Report # BIMO710

Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY10, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.

Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.

All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.

The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.

Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.

For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.

For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator

at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Research Methods

Understanding the Results

Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.

Each graph includes the following information:

• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.

• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

51 2 3 4

Very

PoorVery

Good

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

22%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

23%

77%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

40%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

24%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

2%

8%

9%

45%

35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

1%

21%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

24%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

33%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

32%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

37%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

45%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

6%

38%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

46%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

9%

16%

33%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

32%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

5%

36%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

2%

35%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

1%

37%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

21%

77%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 99% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 75% Average evaluation score: 4.1

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

2

4

6

5

3

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Developed Facilities

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

31%

63%

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing usefulmaps and brochures

FY10: 126 respondents

Rating

Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities

FY10: 131 respondents

Rating

Maintaining aclean site

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities

FY10: 106 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: visitor andrecreation management

FY10: 124 respondents

Rating

Managing thenumber of people

FY10: 110 respondents

Rating

Managing the appropriateuse of vehicles

FY10: 105 respondents

Rating

Keeping noise atappropriate levels

FY10: 120 respondents

Rating

Providing sufficient law enforcementpresence to prevent crime

FY10: 55 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: BLM protectionof natural and cultural resources

FY10: 134 respondents

Rating

Ensuring that visitor activities do notinfringe on resource protection

FY10: 121 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thenatural resources

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thecultural resources

FY10: 97 respondents

Rating

Overall quality ofrecreation experience

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Providing useful informationon the Internet

FY10: 54 respondents

Rating

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Survey

Introduction

In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at

23 BLM recreation sites in 11 states during fiscal year 2010 (FY10). The survey was developed to measure

each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,

including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and

waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the

survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data

regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation

use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.

The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Big Morongo Canyon Preserve are summarized in

this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below

(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The

satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This

is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for

this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due

to rounding).

The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor

opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be

found on page 9.

FY10 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied

overall with appropriate facilities,

services, and recreational opportunities:

98%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Information

Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Managing Visitor and Recreation Use

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Resource Management

Report # BIMO710

Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY10, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.

Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.

All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.

The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.

Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.

For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.

For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator

at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Research Methods

Understanding the Results

Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.

Each graph includes the following information:

• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.

• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

51 2 3 4

Very

PoorVery

Good

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

22%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

23%

77%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

40%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

24%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

2%

8%

9%

45%

35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

1%

21%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

24%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

33%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

32%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

37%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

45%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

6%

38%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

46%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

9%

16%

33%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

32%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

5%

36%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

2%

35%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

1%

37%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

21%

77%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 99% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 75% Average evaluation score: 4.1

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

2

4

6

5

3

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Developed Facilities

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

31%

63%

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing usefulmaps and brochures

FY10: 126 respondents

Rating

Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities

FY10: 131 respondents

Rating

Maintaining aclean site

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities

FY10: 106 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: visitor andrecreation management

FY10: 124 respondents

Rating

Managing thenumber of people

FY10: 110 respondents

Rating

Managing the appropriateuse of vehicles

FY10: 105 respondents

Rating

Keeping noise atappropriate levels

FY10: 120 respondents

Rating

Providing sufficient law enforcementpresence to prevent crime

FY10: 55 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: BLM protectionof natural and cultural resources

FY10: 134 respondents

Rating

Ensuring that visitor activities do notinfringe on resource protection

FY10: 121 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thenatural resources

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thecultural resources

FY10: 97 respondents

Rating

Overall quality ofrecreation experience

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Providing useful informationon the Internet

FY10: 54 respondents

Rating

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Survey

Introduction

In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at

23 BLM recreation sites in 11 states during fiscal year 2010 (FY10). The survey was developed to measure

each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,

including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and

waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the

survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data

regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation

use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.

The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Big Morongo Canyon Preserve are summarized in

this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below

(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The

satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This

is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for

this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due

to rounding).

The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor

opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be

found on page 9.

FY10 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied

overall with appropriate facilities,

services, and recreational opportunities:

98%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Information

Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Managing Visitor and Recreation Use

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Resource Management

Report # BIMO710

Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY10, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.

Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.

All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.

The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.

Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.

For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.

For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator

at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Research Methods

Understanding the Results

Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.

Each graph includes the following information:

• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.

• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

51 2 3 4

Very

PoorVery

Good

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

22%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

23%

77%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

40%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

24%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

2%

8%

9%

45%

35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

1%

21%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

24%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

33%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

32%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

37%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

45%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

6%

38%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

46%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

9%

16%

33%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

32%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

5%

36%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

2%

35%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

1%

37%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

21%

77%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 99% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 75% Average evaluation score: 4.1

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

2

4

6

5

3

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Developed Facilities

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

31%

63%

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing usefulmaps and brochures

FY10: 126 respondents

Rating

Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities

FY10: 131 respondents

Rating

Maintaining aclean site

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities

FY10: 106 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: visitor andrecreation management

FY10: 124 respondents

Rating

Managing thenumber of people

FY10: 110 respondents

Rating

Managing the appropriateuse of vehicles

FY10: 105 respondents

Rating

Keeping noise atappropriate levels

FY10: 120 respondents

Rating

Providing sufficient law enforcementpresence to prevent crime

FY10: 55 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: BLM protectionof natural and cultural resources

FY10: 134 respondents

Rating

Ensuring that visitor activities do notinfringe on resource protection

FY10: 121 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thenatural resources

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thecultural resources

FY10: 97 respondents

Rating

Overall quality ofrecreation experience

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Providing useful informationon the Internet

FY10: 54 respondents

Rating

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Survey

Introduction

In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at

23 BLM recreation sites in 11 states during fiscal year 2010 (FY10). The survey was developed to measure

each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,

including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and

waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the

survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data

regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation

use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.

The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Big Morongo Canyon Preserve are summarized in

this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below

(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The

satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This

is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for

this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due

to rounding).

The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor

opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be

found on page 9.

FY10 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied

overall with appropriate facilities,

services, and recreational opportunities:

98%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Information

Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Managing Visitor and Recreation Use

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Resource Management

Report # BIMO710

Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY10, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.

Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.

All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.

The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.

Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.

For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.

For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator

at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Research Methods

Understanding the Results

Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.

Each graph includes the following information:

• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.

• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

51 2 3 4

Very

PoorVery

Good

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

22%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

23%

77%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

40%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

24%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

2%

8%

9%

45%

35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

1%

21%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

24%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

33%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

32%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

37%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

45%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

6%

38%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

46%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

9%

16%

33%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

32%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

5%

36%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

2%

35%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

1%

37%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

21%

77%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 99% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 75% Average evaluation score: 4.1

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

2

4

6

5

3

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Developed Facilities

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

31%

63%

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing usefulmaps and brochures

FY10: 126 respondents

Rating

Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities

FY10: 131 respondents

Rating

Maintaining aclean site

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities

FY10: 106 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: visitor andrecreation management

FY10: 124 respondents

Rating

Managing thenumber of people

FY10: 110 respondents

Rating

Managing the appropriateuse of vehicles

FY10: 105 respondents

Rating

Keeping noise atappropriate levels

FY10: 120 respondents

Rating

Providing sufficient law enforcementpresence to prevent crime

FY10: 55 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: BLM protectionof natural and cultural resources

FY10: 134 respondents

Rating

Ensuring that visitor activities do notinfringe on resource protection

FY10: 121 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thenatural resources

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thecultural resources

FY10: 97 respondents

Rating

Overall quality ofrecreation experience

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Providing useful informationon the Internet

FY10: 54 respondents

Rating

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Survey

Introduction

In order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to comply with the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA), and better meet the needs of the public; a visitor satisfaction survey was conducted at

23 BLM recreation sites in 11 states during fiscal year 2010 (FY10). The survey was developed to measure

each site's performance related to BLM GPRA Goal 3.1 - Provide for a quality recreation experience,

including access, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on DOI managed and partnered lands and

waters; and Goal 3.2 - Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. The information collected during the

survey will also help the BLM better serve the public. The survey collected visitor satisfaction data

regarding visitor information (i.e., use of maps, signs, brochures), developed facilities, managing recreation

use, resource management, BLM staff and customer service, and educational and interpretive materials.

The results of the visitor satisfaction survey conducted at Big Morongo Canyon Preserve are summarized in

this data report. A description of the research methods and limitations can be found on the next page. Below

(left) is a graph summarizing visitor opinions of the "overall quality of recreation experience." The

satisfaction measure next to this graph is a combined percentage of "good" and "very good" responses. This

is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.1 and should be used for reporting performance for

this goal (NOTE: the satisfaction measure may not equal the sum of "very good" and "good" percentages due

to rounding).

The response rate for this site survey was 100%. The graph and satisfaction measure summarizing visitor

opinions of the “value for fee paid”, which is the primary performance measure for GPRA Goal 3.2, can be

found on page 9.

FY10 GPRASatisfaction MeasurePercentage of site visitors satisfied

overall with appropriate facilities,

services, and recreational opportunities:

98%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Visitor Information

Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit for the Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Managing Visitor and Recreation Use

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Resource Management

Report # BIMO710

Research MethodsSurveys were distributed to a random sample ofvisitors at this site during a selected period inFY10, The survey response rate is described on thefirst page of this report, meaning that 100% ofthose randomly sampled responded to thesurvey.The data reflect visitor opinions about thissite's facilities, management, services, educationalopportunities, and fees during the survey period.Visitor activities and selected demographics werealso captured. A representative sample of thegeneral visitor population were surveyed atselected locations. The results do not necessarilyapply to visitors during other times of the year, orvisitors who did not visit the survey locations onsite.

Returned surveys were electronically scanned andthe data analyzed. Frequency distributions werecalculated for each indicator and category.

All percentage calculations were rounded to thenearest percent.

The survey response rate is described on the firstpage of this report. The sample size (n) varies fromfigure to figure, depending on the number ofresponses.

Caution is advised when interpreting any data witha sample size of less than 30. In such cases, theword “CAUTION!” is included in the graph. Thisreport excludes any indicator with less than 10responses.

For most indicators, the survey data are expected tobe accurate with in ± 6% with 95% confidence.This means that if different samples had beendrawn, the results would have been similar (±6%)95 out of 100 times.

For more information about this survey, contact Jennifer Hoger Russell, BLM Survey Project Coordinator

at the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit (208) 885-4806

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Research Methods

Understanding the Results

Inside this report are graphs that illustrate the survey results. The report contains 8 categories of dataregarding BLM amenities, staff, and services plus selected demographics. Within these categories are graphsfor each indicator evaluated by site visitors. For example, the Visitor Information category includesindicators such as “providing useful maps and brochures,” “adequate signs on site for direction,” and soforth. In each category there is a graph entitled “Everything Considered”. This graph is the basis fordetermining visitor satisfaction for each category and GPRA reporting numbers.

Each graph includes the following information:

• The number of visitor responses for the indicator;• The percentage of responses which were "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor;"• A "satisfaction measure" that combines the percentage of total responses which were "very good" or "good;" and•!An average evaluation score (mean score) based on the following values: very poor= 1, poor= 2, average= 3, good= 4, very good= 5.

• The higher the average evaluation score, the more positive the visitor response• Graph percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

51 2 3 4

Very

PoorVery

Good

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

22%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

23%

77%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

40%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

24%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

2%

8%

9%

45%

35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

1%

21%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

24%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

33%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

32%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

37%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

45%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

6%

38%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

3%

46%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

9%

16%

33%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

32%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

5%

36%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

2%

35%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

1%

37%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

2%

21%

77%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 80% Average evaluation score: 4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 99% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 93% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 75% Average evaluation score: 4.1

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.5

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 98% Average evaluation score: 4.6

2

4

6

5

3

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Developed Facilities

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

6%

31%

63%

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 94% Average evaluation score: 4.6

Everything considered: quality ofBLM visitor information

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing adequate signs on sitefor direction and orientation

FY10: 136 respondents

Rating

Providing usefulmaps and brochures

FY10: 126 respondents

Rating

Ensuring public awarenessof rules and regulations

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: overallcondition of developed facilities

FY10: 131 respondents

Rating

Maintaining aclean site

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Maintaining roads formotorized vehicles

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Maintaining trails fornon-motorized use

FY10: 127 respondents

Rating

Maintaining cleanliness of restroomsand other physical facilities

FY10: 106 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: visitor andrecreation management

FY10: 124 respondents

Rating

Managing thenumber of people

FY10: 110 respondents

Rating

Managing the appropriateuse of vehicles

FY10: 105 respondents

Rating

Keeping noise atappropriate levels

FY10: 120 respondents

Rating

Providing sufficient law enforcementpresence to prevent crime

FY10: 55 respondents

Rating

Everything considered: BLM protectionof natural and cultural resources

FY10: 134 respondents

Rating

Ensuring that visitor activities do notinfringe on resource protection

FY10: 121 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thenatural resources

FY10: 135 respondents

Rating

Adequately protecting thecultural resources

FY10: 97 respondents

Rating

Overall quality ofrecreation experience

FY10: 128 respondents

Rating

Providing useful informationon the Internet

FY10: 54 respondents

Rating

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

13%

83%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Primary Activities at this Site/Area

Primary activitiesFY10: 130 respondents**

Activities

** Percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could choose more than one activity.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Other

Birdwatching/wildlife viewing

Education and interpretation

Motorized recreation vehicles

Bicycling

Driving for pleasure

Rock climbing

Horseback riding

Non-motorized boating/rafting

Motorized boating

Swimming

Hiking/walking

Picnicking

Sightseeing

Target shooting

Hunting

Fishing

Camping

2%

59%

11%

0%

0%

2%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

88%

18%

34%

0%

0%

0%

0%

10

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

BLM Staff and Service

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

7Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

18%

82%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

19%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

22%

78%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Providing Educational and Interpretive Material

Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

11%

37%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

35%

62%

Everything considered: interpretiveand educational program

FY10: 117 respondents

Rating

Providing stewardship information onhow to protect the cultural and

natural resourcesFY10: 112 respondents

Rating

Providing quality educational andinterpretive material aboutthe resources at this site

FY10: 116 respondents

Rating

Providing a sufficient quantity ofeducational and interpretive materials

about the resources at this siteFY10: 116 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

8

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Demographics

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of respondents

Female

Male

43%

57%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of respondents

18-21

22-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over

9%

26%

22%

21%

12%

7%

2%

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

Children (under 12)

Teenagers(13-17)

Adults(18 and over)

5%

5%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

1-2

3-5

6 and more

70%

23%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

94%

3%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

91%

8%

1%

0%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Fees

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

> $50

$25 - $50

Under $25

No fees

0%

0%

2%

98%

9

Park Studies Unit

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

28%

72%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Programs (interpretive, walk, tour,exhibit, presentations, etc.)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

21%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

17%

83%

Ability to understand themessagesFY10: 24 respondents

Rating

Ability to use the servicesin this areaFY10: 23 respondents

Rating

Ability to access exhibits,waysides, etc.

FY10: 21 respondents

Rating

Ability to adequatelyuse the facilities

FY10: 24 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Accessibility to Visitors with Disabilities

Report # BIMO71012

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Commercial Recreation Operations

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

32%

68%

Quality of Commercial ServicesFY10: 19 respondents

RatingCAUTION!

Everything considered: performanceof BLM staffFY10: 81 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge about thenatural and cultural resources in the area

FY10: 57 respondents

Rating

Staff treated mecourteouslyFY10: 88 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge aboutrecreational opportunities in the area

FY10: 62 respondents

Rating

Total fees paidFY10: 138 respondents

Amount spent

How appropriate was the fee charged for this site/area?

FY10: 9 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

The value of the recreationopportunity was at least equal

to the fee asked to pay.FY10: 8 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

Quality of program(s) attendedFY10: 18 respondents

Rating

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

Number of adults(18 and over) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Adults in group

GenderFY10: 133 respondents

Gender

Respondent ageFY10: 135 respondents

Age (years)

Visitor group compositionFY10: 119 groups

Age group

Number of teenagers(13-17) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Teenagers in group

Number of children(under 12) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Children in group

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

13%

83%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Primary Activities at this Site/Area

Primary activitiesFY10: 130 respondents**

Activities

** Percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could choose more than one activity.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Other

Birdwatching/wildlife viewing

Education and interpretation

Motorized recreation vehicles

Bicycling

Driving for pleasure

Rock climbing

Horseback riding

Non-motorized boating/rafting

Motorized boating

Swimming

Hiking/walking

Picnicking

Sightseeing

Target shooting

Hunting

Fishing

Camping

2%

59%

11%

0%

0%

2%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

88%

18%

34%

0%

0%

0%

0%

10

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

BLM Staff and Service

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

7Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

18%

82%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

19%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

22%

78%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Providing Educational and Interpretive Material

Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

11%

37%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

35%

62%

Everything considered: interpretiveand educational program

FY10: 117 respondents

Rating

Providing stewardship information onhow to protect the cultural and

natural resourcesFY10: 112 respondents

Rating

Providing quality educational andinterpretive material aboutthe resources at this site

FY10: 116 respondents

Rating

Providing a sufficient quantity ofeducational and interpretive materials

about the resources at this siteFY10: 116 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

8

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Demographics

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of respondents

Female

Male

43%

57%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of respondents

18-21

22-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over

9%

26%

22%

21%

12%

7%

2%

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

Children (under 12)

Teenagers(13-17)

Adults(18 and over)

5%

5%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

1-2

3-5

6 and more

70%

23%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

94%

3%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

91%

8%

1%

0%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Fees

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

> $50

$25 - $50

Under $25

No fees

0%

0%

2%

98%

9

Park Studies Unit

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

28%

72%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Programs (interpretive, walk, tour,exhibit, presentations, etc.)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

21%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

17%

83%

Ability to understand themessagesFY10: 24 respondents

Rating

Ability to use the servicesin this areaFY10: 23 respondents

Rating

Ability to access exhibits,waysides, etc.

FY10: 21 respondents

Rating

Ability to adequatelyuse the facilities

FY10: 24 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Accessibility to Visitors with Disabilities

Report # BIMO71012

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Commercial Recreation Operations

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

32%

68%

Quality of Commercial ServicesFY10: 19 respondents

RatingCAUTION!

Everything considered: performanceof BLM staffFY10: 81 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge about thenatural and cultural resources in the area

FY10: 57 respondents

Rating

Staff treated mecourteouslyFY10: 88 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge aboutrecreational opportunities in the area

FY10: 62 respondents

Rating

Total fees paidFY10: 138 respondents

Amount spent

How appropriate was the fee charged for this site/area?

FY10: 9 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

The value of the recreationopportunity was at least equal

to the fee asked to pay.FY10: 8 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

Quality of program(s) attendedFY10: 18 respondents

Rating

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

Number of adults(18 and over) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Adults in group

GenderFY10: 133 respondents

Gender

Respondent ageFY10: 135 respondents

Age (years)

Visitor group compositionFY10: 119 groups

Age group

Number of teenagers(13-17) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Teenagers in group

Number of children(under 12) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Children in group

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

13%

83%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Primary Activities at this Site/Area

Primary activitiesFY10: 130 respondents**

Activities

** Percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could choose more than one activity.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Other

Birdwatching/wildlife viewing

Education and interpretation

Motorized recreation vehicles

Bicycling

Driving for pleasure

Rock climbing

Horseback riding

Non-motorized boating/rafting

Motorized boating

Swimming

Hiking/walking

Picnicking

Sightseeing

Target shooting

Hunting

Fishing

Camping

2%

59%

11%

0%

0%

2%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

88%

18%

34%

0%

0%

0%

0%

10

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

BLM Staff and Service

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

7Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

18%

82%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

19%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

22%

78%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Providing Educational and Interpretive Material

Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

11%

37%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

35%

62%

Everything considered: interpretiveand educational program

FY10: 117 respondents

Rating

Providing stewardship information onhow to protect the cultural and

natural resourcesFY10: 112 respondents

Rating

Providing quality educational andinterpretive material aboutthe resources at this site

FY10: 116 respondents

Rating

Providing a sufficient quantity ofeducational and interpretive materials

about the resources at this siteFY10: 116 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

8

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Demographics

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of respondents

Female

Male

43%

57%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of respondents

18-21

22-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over

9%

26%

22%

21%

12%

7%

2%

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

Children (under 12)

Teenagers(13-17)

Adults(18 and over)

5%

5%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

1-2

3-5

6 and more

70%

23%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

94%

3%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

91%

8%

1%

0%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Fees

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

> $50

$25 - $50

Under $25

No fees

0%

0%

2%

98%

9

Park Studies Unit

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

28%

72%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Programs (interpretive, walk, tour,exhibit, presentations, etc.)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

21%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

17%

83%

Ability to understand themessagesFY10: 24 respondents

Rating

Ability to use the servicesin this areaFY10: 23 respondents

Rating

Ability to access exhibits,waysides, etc.

FY10: 21 respondents

Rating

Ability to adequatelyuse the facilities

FY10: 24 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Accessibility to Visitors with Disabilities

Report # BIMO71012

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Commercial Recreation Operations

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

32%

68%

Quality of Commercial ServicesFY10: 19 respondents

RatingCAUTION!

Everything considered: performanceof BLM staffFY10: 81 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge about thenatural and cultural resources in the area

FY10: 57 respondents

Rating

Staff treated mecourteouslyFY10: 88 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge aboutrecreational opportunities in the area

FY10: 62 respondents

Rating

Total fees paidFY10: 138 respondents

Amount spent

How appropriate was the fee charged for this site/area?

FY10: 9 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

The value of the recreationopportunity was at least equal

to the fee asked to pay.FY10: 8 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

Quality of program(s) attendedFY10: 18 respondents

Rating

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

Number of adults(18 and over) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Adults in group

GenderFY10: 133 respondents

Gender

Respondent ageFY10: 135 respondents

Age (years)

Visitor group compositionFY10: 119 groups

Age group

Number of teenagers(13-17) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Teenagers in group

Number of children(under 12) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Children in group

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

13%

83%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Primary Activities at this Site/Area

Primary activitiesFY10: 130 respondents**

Activities

** Percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could choose more than one activity.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Other

Birdwatching/wildlife viewing

Education and interpretation

Motorized recreation vehicles

Bicycling

Driving for pleasure

Rock climbing

Horseback riding

Non-motorized boating/rafting

Motorized boating

Swimming

Hiking/walking

Picnicking

Sightseeing

Target shooting

Hunting

Fishing

Camping

2%

59%

11%

0%

0%

2%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

88%

18%

34%

0%

0%

0%

0%

10

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

BLM Staff and Service

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

7Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

18%

82%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

19%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

22%

78%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Providing Educational and Interpretive Material

Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

11%

37%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

35%

62%

Everything considered: interpretiveand educational program

FY10: 117 respondents

Rating

Providing stewardship information onhow to protect the cultural and

natural resourcesFY10: 112 respondents

Rating

Providing quality educational andinterpretive material aboutthe resources at this site

FY10: 116 respondents

Rating

Providing a sufficient quantity ofeducational and interpretive materials

about the resources at this siteFY10: 116 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

8

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Demographics

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of respondents

Female

Male

43%

57%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of respondents

18-21

22-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over

9%

26%

22%

21%

12%

7%

2%

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

Children (under 12)

Teenagers(13-17)

Adults(18 and over)

5%

5%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

1-2

3-5

6 and more

70%

23%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

94%

3%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

91%

8%

1%

0%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Fees

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

> $50

$25 - $50

Under $25

No fees

0%

0%

2%

98%

9

Park Studies Unit

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

28%

72%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Programs (interpretive, walk, tour,exhibit, presentations, etc.)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

21%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

17%

83%

Ability to understand themessagesFY10: 24 respondents

Rating

Ability to use the servicesin this areaFY10: 23 respondents

Rating

Ability to access exhibits,waysides, etc.

FY10: 21 respondents

Rating

Ability to adequatelyuse the facilities

FY10: 24 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Accessibility to Visitors with Disabilities

Report # BIMO71012

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Commercial Recreation Operations

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

32%

68%

Quality of Commercial ServicesFY10: 19 respondents

RatingCAUTION!

Everything considered: performanceof BLM staffFY10: 81 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge about thenatural and cultural resources in the area

FY10: 57 respondents

Rating

Staff treated mecourteouslyFY10: 88 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge aboutrecreational opportunities in the area

FY10: 62 respondents

Rating

Total fees paidFY10: 138 respondents

Amount spent

How appropriate was the fee charged for this site/area?

FY10: 9 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

The value of the recreationopportunity was at least equal

to the fee asked to pay.FY10: 8 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

Quality of program(s) attendedFY10: 18 respondents

Rating

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

Number of adults(18 and over) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Adults in group

GenderFY10: 133 respondents

Gender

Respondent ageFY10: 135 respondents

Age (years)

Visitor group compositionFY10: 119 groups

Age group

Number of teenagers(13-17) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Teenagers in group

Number of children(under 12) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Children in group

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

13%

83%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Primary Activities at this Site/Area

Primary activitiesFY10: 130 respondents**

Activities

** Percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could choose more than one activity.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Other

Birdwatching/wildlife viewing

Education and interpretation

Motorized recreation vehicles

Bicycling

Driving for pleasure

Rock climbing

Horseback riding

Non-motorized boating/rafting

Motorized boating

Swimming

Hiking/walking

Picnicking

Sightseeing

Target shooting

Hunting

Fishing

Camping

2%

59%

11%

0%

0%

2%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

88%

18%

34%

0%

0%

0%

0%

10

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

BLM Staff and Service

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

7Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

18%

82%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

19%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

22%

78%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Providing Educational and Interpretive Material

Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

11%

37%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

35%

62%

Everything considered: interpretiveand educational program

FY10: 117 respondents

Rating

Providing stewardship information onhow to protect the cultural and

natural resourcesFY10: 112 respondents

Rating

Providing quality educational andinterpretive material aboutthe resources at this site

FY10: 116 respondents

Rating

Providing a sufficient quantity ofeducational and interpretive materials

about the resources at this siteFY10: 116 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

8

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Demographics

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of respondents

Female

Male

43%

57%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of respondents

18-21

22-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over

9%

26%

22%

21%

12%

7%

2%

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

Children (under 12)

Teenagers(13-17)

Adults(18 and over)

5%

5%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

1-2

3-5

6 and more

70%

23%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

94%

3%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

91%

8%

1%

0%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Fees

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

> $50

$25 - $50

Under $25

No fees

0%

0%

2%

98%

9

Park Studies Unit

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

28%

72%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Programs (interpretive, walk, tour,exhibit, presentations, etc.)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

21%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

17%

83%

Ability to understand themessagesFY10: 24 respondents

Rating

Ability to use the servicesin this areaFY10: 23 respondents

Rating

Ability to access exhibits,waysides, etc.

FY10: 21 respondents

Rating

Ability to adequatelyuse the facilities

FY10: 24 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Accessibility to Visitors with Disabilities

Report # BIMO71012

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Commercial Recreation Operations

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

32%

68%

Quality of Commercial ServicesFY10: 19 respondents

RatingCAUTION!

Everything considered: performanceof BLM staffFY10: 81 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge about thenatural and cultural resources in the area

FY10: 57 respondents

Rating

Staff treated mecourteouslyFY10: 88 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge aboutrecreational opportunities in the area

FY10: 62 respondents

Rating

Total fees paidFY10: 138 respondents

Amount spent

How appropriate was the fee charged for this site/area?

FY10: 9 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

The value of the recreationopportunity was at least equal

to the fee asked to pay.FY10: 8 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

Quality of program(s) attendedFY10: 18 respondents

Rating

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

Number of adults(18 and over) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Adults in group

GenderFY10: 133 respondents

Gender

Respondent ageFY10: 135 respondents

Age (years)

Visitor group compositionFY10: 119 groups

Age group

Number of teenagers(13-17) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Teenagers in group

Number of children(under 12) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Children in group

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

13%

83%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Primary Activities at this Site/Area

Primary activitiesFY10: 130 respondents**

Activities

** Percentages do not equal 100 because visitors could choose more than one activity.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Other

Birdwatching/wildlife viewing

Education and interpretation

Motorized recreation vehicles

Bicycling

Driving for pleasure

Rock climbing

Horseback riding

Non-motorized boating/rafting

Motorized boating

Swimming

Hiking/walking

Picnicking

Sightseeing

Target shooting

Hunting

Fishing

Camping

2%

59%

11%

0%

0%

2%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

88%

18%

34%

0%

0%

0%

0%

10

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

BLM Staff and Service

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

7Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

14%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

18%

82%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

19%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

22%

78%

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Providing Educational and Interpretive Material

Report # BIMO710

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

1%

11%

37%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

5%

32%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

3%

35%

62%

Everything considered: interpretiveand educational program

FY10: 117 respondents

Rating

Providing stewardship information onhow to protect the cultural and

natural resourcesFY10: 112 respondents

Rating

Providing quality educational andinterpretive material aboutthe resources at this site

FY10: 116 respondents

Rating

Providing a sufficient quantity ofeducational and interpretive materials

about the resources at this siteFY10: 116 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 95% Average evaluation score: 4.6

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 88% Average evaluation score: 4.4

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 97% Average evaluation score: 4.6

8

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Demographics

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of respondents

Female

Male

43%

57%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of respondents

18-21

22-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over

9%

26%

22%

21%

12%

7%

2%

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

Children (under 12)

Teenagers(13-17)

Adults(18 and over)

5%

5%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

1-2

3-5

6 and more

70%

23%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

94%

3%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of groups

none

1-2

3-5

6 and more

91%

8%

1%

0%

Report # BIMO710

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Fees

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

> $50

$25 - $50

Under $25

No fees

0%

0%

2%

98%

9

Park Studies Unit

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

28%

72%

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Programs (interpretive, walk, tour,exhibit, presentations, etc.)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

4%

21%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

17%

83%

Ability to understand themessagesFY10: 24 respondents

Rating

Ability to use the servicesin this areaFY10: 23 respondents

Rating

Ability to access exhibits,waysides, etc.

FY10: 21 respondents

Rating

Ability to adequatelyuse the facilities

FY10: 24 respondents

Rating

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.7

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 96% Average evaluation score: 4.8

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.8

Big Morongo Canyon Preserve

Accessibility to Visitors with Disabilities

Report # BIMO71012

FY10: Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.9

FY10 Satisfaction measure: 100% Average evaluation score: 4.7

Commercial Recreation Operations

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of respondents

Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

0%

0%

0%

32%

68%

Quality of Commercial ServicesFY10: 19 respondents

RatingCAUTION!

Everything considered: performanceof BLM staffFY10: 81 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge about thenatural and cultural resources in the area

FY10: 57 respondents

Rating

Staff treated mecourteouslyFY10: 88 respondents

Rating

Staff demonstrated knowledge aboutrecreational opportunities in the area

FY10: 62 respondents

Rating

Total fees paidFY10: 138 respondents

Amount spent

How appropriate was the fee charged for this site/area?

FY10: 9 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

The value of the recreationopportunity was at least equal

to the fee asked to pay.FY10: 8 respondents

Rating

The chart for this questionhas been excluded because

there were fewer than 10responses. See page 2 fordiscussion regarding the

required minimum responsecount.

Quality of program(s) attendedFY10: 18 respondents

Rating

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

CAUTION!

Number of adults(18 and over) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Adults in group

GenderFY10: 133 respondents

Gender

Respondent ageFY10: 135 respondents

Age (years)

Visitor group compositionFY10: 119 groups

Age group

Number of teenagers(13-17) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Teenagers in group

Number of children(under 12) in group

FY10: 119 groups

Children in group